"Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Thanks for the informative article Hands. While I appreciate the sentiment related to it, when considered in the context of the entire United States, it represents 0.015% of the population. I don't wish harm on anyone but certainly it is possible to reform the cracks these folks fall through with regard to social welfare programs without forcing the entire general population to alter their current health options.

The Democratic Party could really do themselves a favor and go back to what made Clinton so successful. Clinton got hammered very hard trying to alter the entire health care delivery system. Afterwards he kept hitting singles instead of trying for grand slams to use a baseball analogy. He built up an awful lot of good will and trust using that mechanism. The hard leftists, those who want government to control and alter our lifestyle complained that it was like he was running for mayor instead of president, but it worked.

Of all the current uninsured, almost ten million are estimated to be covered by currently offered programs but they just haven't signed up for them yet.

Why not suggest Obama simply try for a single instead of a Grand-Slam? Wouldn't ten million more people helped via current legislation and programs by convincing them to sign up still make a pretty darn good bullet point in the 2012 reelection speech?

Of course it's outrageous that the most technologically advanced and the wealthiest nation on Earth allows something like this to happen.

But we can't have any reasonable discourse in this country because Democrats are evil scumbags who are hellbent on destroying America.

So where does that leave us?

Fucked.

And Republicans are the only ones with any power to make changes? This has been going on through how many different administrations and political changes? This is not a right vs left problem. It is just easy to pin it on one side or the other and you can ignore how much your own side has not done. If the democrats really, REALLY wanted it, I honestly believe we would have universal health care. Not just those in power mind you, I mean all democrats, voters too.

The problem is not that it is not wanted, the problem is, it is a very large program that people do not want to see slammed in. I am watching where they are going with the current plans and it makes me cringe when, after trying to offer a plan that implements only some of the changes to begin with, the democrats say, "IT'S NOT ENOUGH" and continue to fight for the bigger plan that is the most divisive. Then you come out and blame Republicans for being the road block. If they really want it, they will take the smaller short term wins, and get what they want over the long term. They all just want political points, right and left.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

One must find oneself in a situation that doesn't support the continuation of their life before one dies, and lack of insurance isn't a life threatening condition. Find a death certificate where cause of death lists "lack of health care". Most common reasons are heart disease, cancer, etc.

Overall life expectancy in the US is 78.53, in the UK it's 79.01, the EU as a whole is at 78.67 - it doesn't look like "universal health care" makes a lot of difference.

Thanks for the informative article Hands. While I appreciate the sentiment related to it, when considered in the context of the entire United States, it represents 0.015% of the population. I don't wish harm on anyone but certainly it is possible to reform the cracks these folks fall through with regard to social welfare programs without forcing the entire general population to alter their current health options.

The Democratic Party could really do themselves a favor and go back to what made Clinton so successful. Clinton got hammered very hard trying to alter the entire health care delivery system. Afterwards he kept hitting singles instead of trying for grand slams to use a baseball analogy. He built up an awful lot of good will and trust using that mechanism. The hard leftists, those who want government to control and alter our lifestyle complained that it was like he was running for mayor instead of president, but it worked.

Of all the current uninsured, almost ten million are estimated to be covered by currently offered programs but they just haven't signed up for them yet.

Why not suggest Obama simply try for a single instead of a Grand-Slam? Wouldn't ten million more people helped via current legislation and programs by convincing them to sign up still make a pretty darn good bullet point in the 2012 reelection speech?

Whatever prevents these parents from getting the coverage their entitled to for themselves or their 6 million children who are entitled to medicaid or schip (the same schip the repubs wanted to slash) but remain with no insurance is shocking. Ignorance plays a role and so does the process of applying, that can be arduous. There's something very wrong there. Luckily here in the UK we don't have that fuss. Call your doctor, go to hospital, it's so easy a ten year old could do it.

45,000 is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Many people are suffering, without the right drugs or treatments or advice. Obama's plan won't kill off private insurance, far from it and it's absurd to think that it would. I don't think you are likely to be stupid enough to suggest that it would, though some here obviously are. What his plan will actually do is make private insurance better for the consumer. About time too.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

One must find oneself in a situation that doesn't support the continuation of their life before one dies, and lack of insurance isn't a life threatening condition. Find a death certificate where cause of death lists "lack of health care". Most common reasons are heart disease, cancer, etc.

Overall life expectancy in the US is 78.53, in the UK it's 79.01, the EU as a whole is at 78.67 - it doesn't look like "universal health care" makes a lot of difference.

LOL, well spotted. My bad

Where did you get your figures about life expectancy from. According to what I've seen from the UN, there's a 1 year and 2 month longer life here in the UK over the US.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

One must find oneself in a situation that doesn't support the continuation of their life before one dies, and lack of insurance isn't a life threatening condition. Find a death certificate where cause of death lists "lack of health care". Most common reasons are heart disease, cancer, etc.

Overall life expectancy in the US is 78.53, in the UK it's 79.01, the EU as a whole is at 78.67 - it doesn't look like "universal health care" makes a lot of difference.

The argument of Republican Senators is that the US health care is MUCH BETTER than those evil socialists.
To keep US citizens alive this long cost about double of what it costs in the UK and still were a not beating these numbers.

Not that much of a difference, seems to be more of a statistical rounding error. There are many other factors that go into lifespan than whether or not a person has health care also.

So Taskiss made a convenient errror and then failed to mention it, shock!

The US is 78.11 not 78.53 according to the CIA's numbers, making a difference of nearly a year (78.11 in the US and 79.01 in the UK) and 14 months more in the UN's set of numbers (78.2 in the US and 79.4 in the UK). The European countries are all higher than the US except for the East European countries like Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, Czech Republic and Poland.~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy Sheesh, Europe's way ahead, as is Japan, Australia, Singapore and Israel.

You really don't think that these figures matter, that they make "no difference". Do you like dead babies? The US loses 28,000 babies in their first year of life every year and the mothers are 70% more likely to die during childbirth than in Europe (70% is according to an op-ed in the NY Times). That's the second highest infant mortality rate amongst developed countries, tied with Malta and Slovakia and only doing better than Latvia.

Even if you exclude Blacks in the US, who have a far higher infant mortality rate than Whites, in large part because their poverty rate as a percentage of their race is double that of Whites and poverty plays a major role in the infant mortality rates. The US Non-Hispanic White population in 2005 had an infant mortality rate of 5.73 deaths per 1,000 births compared to the overall UK's 4.8 (2006 figure) and that number includes the UK's minorities ( which have worse infant mortality rates than whites) which account for 8% of the population.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The argument of Republican Senators is that the US health care is MUCH BETTER than those evil socialists.
To keep US citizens alive this long cost about double of what it costs in the UK and still were a not beating these numbers.

Yep, and the UK spends just 8% of it's GDP on health care, whilst the US spends nearly 16%.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

So Taskiss made a convenient errror and then failed to mention it, shock!

I cut and pasted. In fact, after I posted the wiki link I checked again and it was accurate. I guess wiki is crap... not that I'm surprised, but still.

So, you claim that people die because of "lack of health care" and then you try to bust my chops over what you claim was a convenient error. Pretty petty, that. Almost as petty as the difference in life expectancy between the US and the UK. That's what... about a 1.5% difference? 'm pretty sure that's within the margin of error.

So, then you brig up dead babies. Interesting notion... I hadn't considered that. I guess when you figure all those mortalities into the equation they actually skew the numbers low. From what I've read, "infant mortality" is when the baby dies within the first year. So, when you consider that pre-term delivery is the cause (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html) you can see that the US health care system is actually contributing to live births where in other nations, those babies would not have been born alive and wouldn't result in an infant mortality statistic. Here is some estimates of the issue - (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prem...ts-country.htm)

No one has ever died because of anything an insurance company has done. You should blame people's death on God or perhaps their parents for their genes, but not the insurance company.

At best, health care can extend life past some point where under ordinary conditions life would have ended.

There was a guy from a small Austrian town called "Braunau" who felt exactly like that too. Genetic predispositions and birth defects as well as certain races should be eliminated to achieve a healthy, productive human race.

The same argument could be used for ANYthing that has killed a baby... auto crashes, pool drownings, bee stings, peanut allergies... etc. Playing the "it's for the children" card just means you've ran out of "good" arguments.

Anyone who doesn't already have health insurance is in that situation by CHOICE!... They CHOSE not to spend their money to buy insurance (you do understand what insurance is?, right?) They looked at the cost, and decided that cigarettes and beer were more important to them. Or they decided they'd rather drive a new car without health insurance, rather than a 10 year old vehicle that would allow them to afford the insurance.

Yes... that's a gross generalization, but less so than saying "people die from a lack of health insurance". Sure, there are a few people with genuine situations where they can no longer get insurance... and there are already gov't institutions in place to support those people. But the VAST MAJORITY of the advertised "uninsured" in this country are in that situation because of the choices they've made... NOT because health-insurance was not available to them!!!

And my first line was a JOKE!!!... if you were offended, then you need to lighten up a bit!! ... everyone knows they're MUCH better with mustard!

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

So Taskiss made a convenient errror and then failed to mention it, shock!

Is that what you got from my statement? You misunderstood. From all the sites the numbers are so close that there is more likelihood of a rounding error statistically speaking. You cannot take one site or organizations word for it. Get the numbers from a few places and see whether the numbers play out the same. They should all be the same or very close. If not then the numbers of the ones furthest off become suspect. Unless you want to believe they somehow have the inside line on reality.

Quote:

The US is 78.11 not 78.53 according to the CIA's numbers, making a difference of nearly a year (78.11 in the US and 79.01 in the UK) and 14 months more in the UN's set of numbers (78.2 in the US and 79.4 in the UK). The European countries are all higher than the US except for the East European countries like Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, Czech Republic and Poland.~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy Sheesh, Europe's way ahead, as is Japan, Australia, Singapore and Israel.

and the argument you are making is the major factor promoting the death rate is lack of health care at the appropriate time. Let's not bring into the picture nutrition, proper eating habits, lifestyle choices by adults, and other contributing factors. Does healthcare play a role? Sure it does. Is it the only factor and is it as big as some would like to think? I don't believe so. The numbers are lower in the US than other places and that point is of concern.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I cut and pasted. In fact, after I posted the wiki link I checked again and it was accurate. I guess wiki is crap... not that I'm surprised, but still.

So, you claim that people die because of "lack of health care" and then you try to bust my chops over what you claim was a convenient error. Pretty petty, that. Almost as petty as the difference in life expectancy between the US and the UK. That's what... about a 1.5% difference? 'm pretty sure that's within the margin of error.

So, then you brig up dead babies. Interesting notion... I hadn't considered that. I guess when you figure all those mortalities into the equation they actually skew the numbers low. From what I've read, "infant mortality" is when the baby dies within the first year. So, when you consider that pre-term delivery is the cause (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html) you can see that the US health care system is actually contributing to live births where in other nations, those babies would not have been born alive and wouldn't result in an infant mortality statistic. Here is some estimates of the issue - (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prem...ts-country.htm)

Taskiss what you did was use Puerto Rico (78.53), it has a little US flag next to it!! which has a longer life expectancy at rank 42 than the US (78.11) at rank 50.

Nominal GDP is a much more accurate way of comparing per capita GDP between different nations and it's not as estimated as PPP is and is therefore more constant, rather than varying so much (sometimes in very extreme ways) by different organizations estimates. The UK's nominal GDP is $43,785 (ranked 20th) which is only slightly lower than the US's $46,859 (ranked 17th). Here's a link of how countries rank- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

Having just spent ten years in the US, a lot of things are slightly cheaper there IMHO, but definitely not all, which flies in the face of you comparing the US to the UK, as if the US were more expensive than here.

No one doubts doubts that nutrition plays a role in life expectancy or infant mortality rates, but despite what you say health care plays a significant role, especially in IMR. The proper guidance and advice alone could save thousands of lives each year. A lot of these women are worrying about how to pay for their babies and being poor don't want to spend money to get the appropriate advice. You can look it up. I really can't be bothered informing you about it, it doesn't seem worth it, not to someone who downplays the significance of good health care to the extreme detriment of the poor the way you relish.

and the argument you are making is the major factor promoting the death rate is lack of health care at the appropriate time. Let's not bring into the picture nutrition, proper eating habits, lifestyle choices by adults, and other contributing factors. Does healthcare play a role? Sure it does. Is it the only factor and is it as big as some would like to think? I don't believe so. The numbers are lower in the US than other places and that point is of concern.

I'm not disputing that other factors play a role like the ones you mentioned and that American's like to work themselves to death for an extra buck, not always out of choice but rather necessity, I might add. Part of health care is through doctors informing their patients on the actual dangers of their diet, the benefits to their health of exercise and there are programs set up to inform people and encourage people to make positive changes. Separating them out and not seeing the connection between the two is just plain foolish. If you can't afford to go and see a doctor your missing out on good healthy advice.

A lot of the reasons I have read for America's shorter life expectancy, give as the main reason inadequate health care for the un or under uninsured.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The same argument could be used for ANYthing that has killed a baby... auto crashes, pool drownings, bee stings, peanut allergies... etc. Playing the "it's for the children" card just means you've ran out of "good" arguments.

Anyone who doesn't already have health insurance is in that situation by CHOICE!... They CHOSE not to spend their money to buy insurance (you do understand what insurance is?, right?) They looked at the cost, and decided that cigarettes and beer were more important to them. Or they decided they'd rather drive a new car without health insurance, rather than a 10 year old vehicle that would allow them to afford the insurance.

Yes... that's a gross generalization, but less so than saying "people die from a lack of health insurance". Sure, there are a few people with genuine situations where they can no longer get insurance... and there are already gov't institutions in place to support those people. But the VAST MAJORITY of the advertised "uninsured" in this country are in that situation because of the choices they've made... NOT because health-insurance was not available to them!!!

And my first line was a JOKE!!!... if you were offended, then you need to lighten up a bit!! ... everyone knows they're MUCH better with mustard!

When responding to Taskiss who thinks that health care makes no difference on someone's health, one is pushed into making such statements.

And I was offended by your jokes. Keep them to yourself in future, please!

I prefer mine, still fresh, almost warm and thinly sliced and diced with freshly squeezed lemon.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I'm not disputing that other factors play a role like the ones you mentioned and that American's like to work themselves to death for an extra buck, not always out of choice but rather necessity, I might add. Part of health care is through doctors informing their patients on the actual dangers of their diet, the benefits to their health of exercise and there are programs set up to inform people and encourage people to make positive changes. Separating them out and not seeing the connection between the two is just plain foolish. If you can't afford to go and see a doctor your missing out on good healthy advice.

A lot of the reasons I have read for America's shorter life expectancy, give as the main reason inadequate health care for the un or under uninsured.

And you can tell any American what to do and they will do it right? My wife refuses to go to the dentist because she knows they will tell her that she is not brushing correctly. We have insurance and she simply refuses to go. I know other people at work that will not go tot he doctor unless they are really feeling miserable and cannot do anything else. They are insured and have no excuse in your mind why they would not go. They also do not care to have their habits changed by someone else's opinion. Having insurance is not a magic bullet. It is not like they have not heard that McDonald's or other fast foods are bad for you. You think they don't know that fatty foods cause health problems and a visit to the doctor will suddenly inform them and they will change their habits? How many that smoke stop when they hear it will likely cause cancer. How many do you really believe will simply stop because the doctor tells them to? Heck, once they get that terminal cancer from smoking they still don't stop, after all, whats the use, they may as well go out happy.

Anyone ever watch The Biggest Loser? How many on that show even after they are shown the stark reality of their health problems still fail to work as hard as they need to? Habits take a lifetime to build up, and people, even under strict regiment, do not take kindly to being told how to run their lives.

This fantasy world of a doctors visit will solve all the ill's of society will only go so far. The majority of people won't listen anyhow. I am willing to bet everyone on these boards do things that are bad for you, even after being told so by a doctor. If there are any that don't they are way more disciplined than even the best athletes...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You believe that if you have to wait to be very ill to get free treatment is a good thing and does not cause deaths?

You do not have to be very ill. You can go to the hospital with a paper cut and they will treat you. Is FREE treatment what you want? There is NO proposal that will give you Free treatment. You must not know how the current system works. Here's how it works:
1. you get sick or hurt
2. you go to a hospital
3. they treat you
4. someone pays the bill, either you pay the whole bill (they will discount the amount and set up a payment schedule based on the amount YOU select. If you can only afford $20 a month that's what they will take.) OR your insurance pays part of the bill and you pay the rest.

Most of the time if you pay the agreed amount on time most hospitals will at some point write off the debt. Which means you do not owe them any more money.

When responding to Taskiss who thinks that health care makes no difference on someone's health, one is pushed into making such statements.

This coming from a guy who started a thread stating people die from a circumstance that has no bearing whatsoever on their health...

The "Health Care" system provides a single avenue for access to medical services. It's not the only avenue to those services, nor is it even necessary for one to have formal access to that system to have affordable medical service, as Mystic pointed out. Yet, Hands would attempt to attribute tens of thousands of deaths annually to the lack of same.

You know what your risk of death is? 100% - whether you receive health care or not, you're going to die.

A new study in the American Journal of Public Health claiming that lack of health insurance increases the risk of death by 40% is flawed, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated,” said NCPA President John C. Goodman. “The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death.”

“Being uninsured is like being unemployed,” said Goodman. “It happens to lots of people for brief periods of time. But most people who are uninsured can get insurance within 12 months. Were the people in this study uninsured for only a few months? Or, was it 10 years? Nobody knows.”

A more careful study using a similar approach by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill found that for low-income people, uninsurance increased the probability of dying by only 3% and for higher-income people uninsurance had no impact on mortality.http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/06012009_oneill.pdf

“There is a genuine crisis of the uninsured in this country,” Goodman said. “And, while it is better to have private insurance coverage than no health insurance at all, statistically, patients fare better with no insurance in this country than those who are insured in Canada.”

Hands really has a problem with the Congressional Budget Office though - he constantly ignores their conclusions. I'm sure a "former director" will get even less consideration.

You do not have to be very ill. You can go to the hospital with a paper cut and they will treat you. Is FREE treatment what you want? There is NO proposal that will give you Free treatment. You must not know how the current system works. Here's how it works:
1. you get sick or hurt
2. you go to a hospital
3. they treat you
4. someone pays the bill, either you pay the whole bill (they will discount the amount and set up a payment schedule based on the amount YOU select. If you can only afford $20 a month that's what they will take.) OR your insurance pays part of the bill and you pay the rest.

Most of the time if you pay the agreed amount on time most hospitals will at some point write off the debt. Which means you do not owe them any more money.

This does NOT cause anyone to die.

Why on earth would anyone pay for health care, are we all stupid?
Why do we need health insurance when you get free treatment anytime you need it?

Why on earth would anyone pay for health care, are we all stupid?
Why do we need health insurance when you get free treatment anytime you need it?

Because most people in this country believe there is no free lunch. Even though you CAN get care without paying, they would not do so, as they do not believe it is right to get something for nothing and making others pay.

However, if you do not have money, you can get health care.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Because most people in this country believe there is no free lunch. Even though you CAN get care without paying, they would not do so, as they do not believe it is right to get something for nothing and making others pay.

However, if you do not have money, you can get health care.

That, and if you do have the wherewithal to pay, you'll be taken to court and the hospital will be awarded the costs. That'll put the obligation where it belongs.